Sign up for weekly updates from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

It is tempting to think that the global coronavirus pandemic will have a moderating effect on tensions between Russia and the West. The logic makes plenty of sense: The price of oil has plunged to levels not seen in decades, sapping the lifeblood of the Russian economy practically overnight. Demand for the other commodities that dominate Russian exports will decline too, as the world heads into a deep recession. Surely, President Vladimir Putin will now abandon his ill-advised military adventures in Ukraine and Syria and instead tend to Russia’s economy and the welfare of its people, right? Unfortunately, such thinking is based on a profound misreading of what drives Russian foreign policy.

Putin Undeterred

The Kremlin’s war against Ukraine, which began with the 2014 annexation of Crimea, was a pivotal moment in Russia’s post–Cold War relationship with the West. It was the last straw that brought clarity and finality to long-running disagreements over NATO expansion, the 2008 war with Georgia, the civil war in Syria, and Putin’s domestic crackdown. But the break with the West and the war against Ukraine are not, as they have been portrayed by foreignobservers (including this writer), reckless adventures.

From Moscow’s perspective, the war with Ukraine—or for Ukraine—is a war of necessity, not choice. The worldview of Putin and his security establishment was shaped by the Cold War and Russia’s post–Cold War “time of troubles.” As they see it, the West took advantage of Russia’s weakness and embarked on a relentless expansion of its sphere of influence right up to Russia’s border. Ukraine, which for centuries had been an inalienable part of the Russian imperial and Soviet heartland, could not be allowed to leave Russia’s orbit and join the West.

It is thus wishful thinking to imagine that, even with the Russian economy heading precipitously into a recession, Putin would end the war in Ukraine in exchange for relief from Western sanctions. Such a deal would mean a humiliating defeat. Putin would in effect have to accept Ukraine’s exit from his self-proclaimed sphere of influence, free to follow its own path of integration into the EU and NATO. Accepting such a deal in exchange for an economic handout from the West would mean another humiliation—acknowledging the failure of a strategy of economic self-reliance that dates to his earliest years in power. For the man who prides himself on lifting Russia from its knees after the 1990s, it is not an option.

The misguided notion that Putin will retreat under economic pressure from the West is rooted in the experience of the 1990s, when Russia withdrew from the world stage to deal with its domestic political and economic turmoil. Since then, Putin and his national security establishment haveresolved that nothing comparable will ever happen on their watch. They did not pull back from their assault on Ukraine under pressure from the West even though the ruble collapsed in late 2014, when oil prices fell dramatically and the economy slipped into a recession. In fact, since then they have doubled down on their confrontational foreign policy, sending troops to Syria, bailing out President Nicolás Maduro’s government in Venezuela, and interfering in the domestic politics of the United States and Europe.

Putin’s foreign policy is daring, but hardly reckless. It involves calculated risks. In the case of Ukraine, the United States and its allies made clear they would not enter the fray directly. Russia’s deployment in Syria to save the regime of President Bashar al-Assad was a bold move with a worthwhile payoff. The principal risk—a military confrontation with the United States—was minimal, since Washington had made it abundantly clear that it would not intervene militarily in the civil war to topple Assad. Putin’s decision restored Russia’s place at the crossroads of Middle Eastern politics after some three decades during which the United States had grown accustomed to its absence. His deal with Maduro reportedly made money for Russia’s national oil company, Rosneft. Other Russian moves—such as forays in the Central African Republic and Libya and meddling in U.S. and European politics—carried little risk and expended few resources, but created a new image of Russia as a major power with global reach.

No Retreat on the Horizon

It would take a radical reversal of domestic economic and political fortunes for the Kremlin to contemplate a retreat from its present course in Ukraine, Syria, or anywhere else. In the near term, the Kremlin may decide to limit its military operations in Syria to reduce the risk of its troops’ exposure to the virus and use private contractors instead. (Evidently, the Russian military considers the personnel of private security companies expendable, and higher unemployment in Russia may expand the ranks of volunteers for dangerous service abroad.) But elsewhere, expect the Kremlin’s army of foreign policy entrepreneurs to double down on spreading disinformation about the pandemic, intervening in conflict zones like Libya, and meddling in elections.

In a televised meeting on April 8, Putin essentially made a “We Shall Overcome” promise to the nation, comparing the coronavirus to the marauding invaders who assaulted Russia in medieval times. He does not sound like a leader likely to retreat from his flagship foreign policy accomplishments. With Putin’s forever presidency now secured, he can safely revert to the role the constitution assigns to him—that of the nation’s supreme leader, reassuring his people, berating regional governors, and calling other world leaders. Putin stands above it all, responsible for none of it.

This is one of the more clear-headed takes on Putin that's out there. Western sanctions don't even begin to approach the level of severity that Putin's shattering of the international order requires. Moreover, Ukraine surrendered the then world's third largest nuclear arsenal, upon U.S. hectoring, to Russia in exchange for security assurances. And now? How do those sanctions compare to those in place against Iran or North Korea?
Sanction advocates assume that Russia's dependency provides the leverage. And what of the opposite dependency? Western democracies will abandon their petty parochialisms in the interest of stronger, longer lasting and more consequential sanctions? At the expense of their own economies and opinion polls? Even with the modest sanctions thus far, we have seen the centrifugal forces at work and growing in Europe; and not only on the economic side, but the political as well.
Moreover, there is nothing in the historical experience of Western/Soviet/Russian relations that supports sanction advocates. Historically, it was Western technology and capital, with the US in the lead, that laid the economic and financial bases for the Soviet Union, and thereafter periodically supplied it with a life support system of technology and other assistance. In the 1920’s and 30’s it was the American engineer who, after the Great Sun, was god in the Soviet Union. Ford’s River Rouge Plant became the Gorki Auto Works, manufacturing cars for the NKVD. U.S. Steel’s Fairless Plant became the Magnitagorsk Iron & Steel Works, and the TVA’s Appalachian Electrification Project became the Dnipro Hydroelectric Complex. Calvin Coolidge said "the business of American is business," and sooner than later the business and financial lobby will hold sway.
Almost better that there were no sanctions, since the slap on the wrist confirms for Putin Marx' verity--Western pusillanimity. "The ignorance, the laziness, the pusillanimity, the perpetual fickleness and the credulousness of Western governments enabled Russia to achieve successively every one of her aims." Putin long ago plumbed Western psychology, and is exploiting it with aplomb. We don't even begin to understand ourselves.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Donald F Smith

April 15, 202011:44 am

The fella who was unexpectedly repatriated to Ukraine after a circuitous journey through Russia's prison system said that the feeling of the average Russians he encountered was overwhelming hopelessness. I don't recall his name or his exact circumstances, but filed-away the idea that because of long experience and a deep-seated fatalism, no broad-based, large-scale unrest because of the domestic economic consequences of Putin's foreign policies would be forthcoming. Even considering the small number and situation of the sample, I've seen nothing before or since which contradicts that impression. Those large crowds protesting in Moscow are brave beyond words, but I doubt effective. Putin will be like Castro, watching American Presidents, some of whom he helped elect, come and go whilst he abides.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Edward Lozansky

April 15, 202011:59 am

"The worldview of Putin and his security establishment was shaped by the Cold War and Russia’s post–Cold War “time of troubles.” As they see it, the West took advantage of Russia’s weakness and embarked on a relentless expansion of its sphere of influence right up to Russia’s border." - Absolutely correct and this is the main reason why Senator Sam Nunn and others are saying that we are "sleepwaking into nuclear disaster." Read John Kennan and statements of 19 US Senators who voted against the first round of NATO expansion back in 1998

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Victor Rud

April 20, 202011:02 am

Former Russian Foreign Minister Andrey Kozyrev dismisses this view: "these ‘humiliations’ are just myths and lies which are convenient for the Kremlin today.” The US in particular ensured that Russia take the place of the USSR on the UN Security Council, and pushed for its inclusion in the WTO and a host of other international organizations. Clinton made sure that the G8 was expanded to include Russia, precisely in 1997 when Russia was formulating its blueprint for subverting the West. The US ensured that Russia was the only remaining nuclear power, forcing Ukraine, which succeeded to the world's third largest nuclear arsenal, transfer that arsenal to Russia. NATO is a mutual defense agreement, now including some of Russia's historic victims. Putin knows that there is no person in the West who is even thinking about an "invasion" of Russia. And "encirclement" of Russia is a geographic impossibility.

E. Rumer states:"It is tempting to think that the global coronavirus pandemic will have a moderating effect on tensions between Russia and the West."
President Trump's actions during the pandemic have created severe tensions between America and the entire world. Putin has done nothing during the pandemic to increase tensions, and, although the western nations might recognize the satisfactory response, the mindset will not accomodate it. If the western nations wanted better relations with Russia, they only have to counter the harmful role that the U.S. plays in disturbing proper relations with everyone.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Afrikaneer

April 24, 20208:30 pm

THE FUTURE BELONGS TO PUTIN-
Early on, Putin impressed Western pundits. At the time (1999), they wondered what his upcoming administration would look like, NOW THEY KNOW. Moving forward Putin’s future is anybody's guess( 2020 thru 2034). For sure, he is done waging an ideological battle against the West. The chaos he creates by stealing and manipulating West digital data is more effective and profitable than the hostility of the Cold War (Cyber-terrorism is a virus like Covid-19); he also supports the West alt-right movements(1). In his mind, West democracies are fair play.
One should expect more Putin interference in Western election cycles; fake news works as well as propaganda. It seeds discontent and divides people. Persuasion, compromise, and public diplomacy are no longer on his list. However, When it comes to advancing Russian oligarchs economic interests he would not stop at anything, including force. In this context, the future belongs to Putin.
Ref(1): Washington Post, Tech section, 4-22-2020 “ Nearly 25000 email addresses and passwords allegedly from NHI, WHO, Gates Foundation, and others are dumped online”. (World health organization-WHO; National Institute of Health-NHI).

Comment Policy

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.